Käyttäjätunnus: Salasana:
Uuden käyttäjän rekisteröinti
Valvoja(t): Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Lista keskustelualueista
Moodi: Kaikki voivat lähettää viestejä
Etsi viesteistä:  

10. Lokakuu 2009, 20:58:08
Übergeek 바둑이 
Otsikko: Re: Dr., Lamont Hill, PH.D
Artful Dodger:

> Hitler could have been stopped early if the governments weren't so wimpy about war.

There are three interpretations of the appeasement policy that Neville Chamberlain followed prior to the war.  For those who don't know much about it, here is a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

One interpretation is like yours.  Neville Chamberlain was weak and he should have declared war immediately.

The second interpretation is that Neville Chamberlain thought that Hitler was not big a threat and appeasing him would simply make him give up his imperialistic ambitions because Poland and Czechoslovakia were more than enough land for the Third Reich to expand.

The third interpretation is more realistic.  England had to make war preparations prior to engaging Hitler's Third Reich.  Since England, France and the US were not ready for war, they were stalling for time and giving Hitler Czechoslovakia and Poland meant that they could prepare prior to entering a full scale war.

All of these three interpretations have validity to some extent.

There is a fourth interpretation, and the one I believe.  Hitler was given control of Poland and Czechoslovakia because Hitler was promising to do the one thing that all the western superpowers wanted.  England and France traded economically with Germany until the start of the war, and the US traded with Hitler until 1942 when the Trading with the Enemy Act was enforced.  Until then, America's most powerful families were doing business with Germany and the American government never talks about this.  What is it that Hitler was going to do?  What was Hitler going to accomplish?  Hitler was promising to destroy the Soviet Union and all western superpowers wanted that.  It is why Americans traded with Hitler until 1942.  It is why New York was the main banking conduit for the Nazis and why Switzerland and Sweden were some of the main industrial suppliers of the Third Reich.  Specially Sweden, which provided about 50% of Germany's steel during the war.  They appeased Hitler because they hated communists more than they hated Nazis.  It was a simple as that.

This interpretation is never talked about in history books because it would imply that the Allies actually wanted Hitler to succeed.  In this interpretation western superpowers are not heroic defenders of freedom, but accomplices in war crimes that left as many as 23 million soviets dead.  Nobody likes this interpretation, so nobody talks about it.

Päivämäärä ja aika
Ystävät palvelimella
Suosikki keskustelut
Yhteisöt
Päivän vinkki
Tekijänoikeudet - Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, kaikki oikeudet pidätetään.
Takaisin alkuun